Obama’s Historic Lies

Obama’s remarks today were not merely dishonest, they were duplicious. he lied. Big, bald-faced lies. And the media, his organ grinder’s monkey, delivers it unchallenged to a clueless American public.

Photo: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif waves the nuclear deal on the balcony of the Palias Coburg in Vienna

Weighing the Arguments for an Iran Deal – WSJ
Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, a supposed reformer, spent last Friday marching prominently in the regime’s yearly “Death to America, Death to Israel” parade. If there is evidence of an Iranian trend toward moderation it behooves proponents of a deal to show it.

Omri Ceren nailed it when he said, ” It’s not that the concession wouldn’t be devastating – it would light up the region in so many different ways that they’re difficult to catalogue – but it just doesn’t seem possible that the Americans can give ground on this. What’s the sales pitch to Congress going to be? “Not only are we giving Iran $150 billion to bolster its military, but we’re also lifting arms restrictions to make it easier for them to buy next-generation cruise missiles they’ll use against the U.S. military and our allies.”

President Obama in a 7 a.m. news conference, during which he looked directly into the lens of the cameras, said: “This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and immediate change. … Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region.”

Just the opposite is true. We caved on everything and set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

He said the forged deal is a win-win, and assured “every pathway to nuclear weapon is cut off.”

Among its specifics he cited: Iran is halted from producing highly enriched, nuclear grade plutonium; Iran will have to remove two-thirds of its centrifuges and store them under constant supervision; Iran can’t use its centrifuges for the next ten years; and Iran will have to modify its reactor in Iraq so it can’t produce weapons grade plutonium.”

Obama also guaranteed U.N. weapons inspectors would have access to visit Iran’s military sites and check for compliance with the deal.

Omri Ceren who is in Vienna explains:

(1) The Iranian nuclear program will be placed under international sponsorship for R&D – A few weeks ago the AP leaked parts of an annex confirming that a major power would be working with the Iranians to develop next-generation centrifuge technology at the Fordow underground military enrichment bunker. Technically the work won’t be on nuclear material, but the AP noted that “isotope production uses the same technology as enrichment and can be quickly re-engineered to enriching uranium.” The administration had once promised Congress that Iran would be forced to dismantle its centrifuge program. The Iranians refused, so the administration conceded that the Iranians would be allowed to keep their existing centrifuges. Now the international community will be actively sponsoring the development of Iranian nuclear technology. And since the work will be overseen by a great power, it will be off-limits to the kind of sabotage that has kept the Iranian nuclear program in check until now.

(2) The sanctions regime will be shredded – the AP revealed at the beginning of June that the vast majority of the domestic U.S. sanctions regime will be dismantled. The Lausanne factsheet – which played a key role in dampening Congressional criticism to American concessions – had explicitly stated “U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.” That turns out to have been false. Instead the administration will redefine non-nuclear sanctions as nuclear, so that it can lift them. The Iranians are boasting that sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank, NIT Co., the National Iranian Oil Company, and 800 individuals and entities will be lifted. That’s probably exaggerated and a bit confused – CBI sanctions are statutory, and will probably not be getting “lifted” – but the sense is clear enough.

(3) The U.S. collapsed on the arms embargo – Just a week ago Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” Now multiple outlets have confirmed that the embargo on conventional weapons will be lifted no later than 5 years from now, and that the embargo on ballistic missiles will expire in 8 years. No one in the region is going to wait for those embargoes to expire: they’ll rush to build up their stockpiles in anticipation of the sunset.

(4) The U.S. collapsed on anytime-anywhere inspections – The IAEA will get to request access to sensitive sites, the Iranians will get to say no, and then there will be an arbitration board that includes Iran as a member. This concession is particularly damaging politically and substantively because the administration long ago went all-in on verification. The original goal of the talks was to make the Iranians take physical actions that would prevent them from going nuclear if they wanted to: dismantling centrifuges, shuttering facilities, etc. The Iranians said no to those demands, and the Americans backed off. The fallback position relied 100% on verification: yes the Iranians would be physically able to cheat, the argument went, but the cheating would be detected because of an anytime-anywhere inspection regime. That is not what the Americans are bringing home.

(5) The U.S. collapsed on PMDs – This morning the Iranians and the IAEA signed a roadmap for a process that would see Tehran eventually providing access for the IAEA to clear up its concerns. This roadmap differs in no significant way from previous commitments the Iranians have made to the agency, except now Tehran will have received sanctions relief and stabilized its economy. Administration officials will have to look at lawmakers and nonetheless promise that this time the Iranians will give the IAEA what it needs.

“This deal is not built on trust,” Obama said. “It is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24-hour access to Iran’s key nuclear buildings.”

But a senior nuclear official said if IAEA inspectors must first petition Iran for permission to visit the sites 14 days in advance.

In return, Iran gets $18 billion in international sanctions’ relief. Obama said the sanctions’ relief will be phased in, as verification of compliance with the accord is achieved.

The deal also includes a caveat that if Iran fails to disable its centrifuge machines within 65 days, the sanctions go back in place.

What’s sure to be a controversial sticking point on Capitol Hill and in Israel especially is the facet of the deal that allows for Iran to stall IAEA inspectors from accessing suspected sites.

Critics are already lining up, saying the $18 billion gives Iran an open door to continue its terror activities around the world. And Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, called the accord a path for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

“Sadly the administration just lit a fuse for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” he said in a statement. “[It] allows for controlled nuclear proliferation.”

Iran has already positioned itself to take advantage of the sanctions relief. In the hours leading up to the announced deal with the six world powers, Tehran’s biggest oil-shipping company was already prepping to hit the European and international markets, as WND previously reported.

Obama said the deal will be solidified with a U.S. Security Council resolution, after Congress and the American people have a chance to review it. He also issued a warning, telling Congress that while he welcomes members’ input and discussion, a failure to approve the plan would leave the world in peril.

“Consider what happens in a world without this deal,” he said. “No deal means a greater chance for more war in the Middle East. … It would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. I welcome robust debate in Congress on this issue … but I veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking from Vienna, Austria, assured the deal would clamp Iran’s ability to enrich uranium well below the level needed to manufacture a weapons. He also said Iran’s Fordow site will be “transformed into a nuclear physics and technology center” that will be “subject to daily inspection.”

Kerry, like Obama, also spoke of the verification benefits and confirmed the sanctions’ relief only starts when Tehran meets key conditions of the accord.

“This agreement has no sunset,” Kerry said. “Inspectors will be able to gain access to any [facility] the IAEA … deem suspicious.”

16 reasons nuke deal is an Iranian victory and a Western catastrophe
Has Iran agreed to ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections, an end to R&D on faster centrifuges, and the dismantling of its key nuclear sites? No, no, and no

The agreement legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program, allows it to retain core nuclear facilities, permits it to continue research in areas that will dramatically speed its breakout to the bomb should it choose to flout the deal, but also enables it to wait out those restrictions and proceed to become a nuclear threshold state with full international legitimacy. Here’s how.

1. Was the Iranian regime required, as a condition for this deal, to disclose the previous military dimensions of its nuclear program — to come clean on its violations — in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities and to shatter the Iranian-dispelled myth that it has never breached its non-proliferation obligations? No. (This failure, arguably the original sin of the Western negotiating approach, is expertly detailed here by Emily B. Landau.) Rather than exposing Iran’s violations, the new deal solemnly asserts that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has failed to honor “remains the cornerstone” of ongoing efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The deal provides for a mechanism “to address past and present issues of concern relating to its nuclear programme,” but Iran has managed to dodge such efforts for years, and the deal inspires little hope of change in that area, blithely anticipating “closing the issue” in the next few months.

2. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt all uranium enrichment, including thousands of centrifuges spinning at its main Natanz enrichment facility? No. The deal specifically legitimizes enrichment under certain eroding limitations.

3. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant? No. It will convert, not dismantle the facility, under a highly complex process. Even if it honors this clause, its commitment to “no additional heavy water reactors or accumulation of heavy water in Iran” will expire after 15 years.

4. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle the underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordow? No. (Convert, not dismantle.)

5. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its ongoing missile development? No.

6. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt research and development of the faster centrifuges that will enable it to break out to the bomb far more rapidly than is currently the case? No. The deal specifically legitimizes ongoing R&D under certain eroding limitations. It specifically provides, for instance, that Iran will commence testing of the fast “IR-8 on single centrifuge machines and its intermediate cascades” as soon as the deal goes into effect, and will “commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years.”

7. Has the Iranian regime been required to submit to “anywhere, anytime” inspections of any and all facilities suspected of engaging in rogue nuclear-related activity? No. Instead, the deal describes at considerable length a very protracted process of advance warning and “consultation” to resolve concerns.

8. Has the international community established procedures setting out how it will respond to different classes of Iranian violations, to ensure that the international community can act with sufficient speed and efficiency to thwart a breakout to the bomb? No.

9. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its arming, financing and training of the Hezbollah terrorist army in south Lebanon? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

10. Has the Iranian regime been required to surrender for trial the members of its leadership placed on an Interpol watch list for their alleged involvement in the bombing, by a Hezbollah suicide bomber, of the AMIA Jewish community center offices in Buenos Aires in 1994 that resulted in the deaths of 85 people? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

11. Has the Iranian regime undertaken to close its 80 estimated “cultural centers” in South America from which it allegedly fosters terrorist networks? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

12. Has the Iranian leadership agreed to stop inciting hatred among its people against Israel and the United States and to stop its relentless calls for the annihilation of Israel? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

13. Has the Iranian regime agreed to halt executions, currently running at an average of some three a day, the highest rate for 20 years? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

14. Does the nuclear deal shatter the painstakingly constructed sanctions regime that forced Iran to the negotiating table? Yes.

15. Will the deal usher in a new era of global commercial interaction with Iran, reviving the Iranian economy and releasing financial resources that Iran will use to bolster its military forces and terrorist networks? Yes.

16. Does the nuclear deal further cement Iran’s repressive and ideologically rapacious regime in power? Yes.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

The Sons of Liberty is a politically neutral organization. We believe that the Judeo-Christian ethic has provided the principles upon which this nation was founded. It is our belief that these principles provide
not only the foundation and framework for American government and society, but are also essential to the maintenance of a fair and just society. All content is based on a Christian, Biblical world-view.